Experience Counts

Charles Percy had a successful business career as head of Bell and Howell, a camera company, before being elected US Senator from Illinois in 1966 as a Republican. Almost immediately he was broadly touted as a potential GOP presidential nominee. Percy declined to be a candidate in 1968, however, saying he did not have enough experience. 

I am sure that seems a quaint notion to aspiring seekers of the oval office in the 21st century.

To most objective observers, Donald Trump in 2016 did not have the normal qualifications one might expect of a presidential candidate.  His name was reasonably well known to the American public. His “Apprentice” television show had run for a long time, and Trump was often fodder for gossip columns. His celebrity status appeared to be enhanced by the frequent bankruptcies suffered by his real estate and gambling ventures.

But Trump had never served in government at any level; neither elected office, nor appointed position. He had never run for office.  

Trump had no military record, even though he was draft age at the height of the Vietnam War. He was declared 4-F by his local draft board on the basis of a bone spur in his foot.

Trump’s marital life also did not conform to normal expectations. Ronald Reagan had been divorced, but when he was elected, Reagan and his second wife Nancy had been married for 28 years.  Trump’s misogyny was visible and unapologetic.

As a presidential candidate Trump identified several significant issues that American voters felt the country’s political elites had either ignored or had poorly addressed.  Immigration, job security, trade, and the excessive influence of special interests were key elements in his campaign agenda.

In neither the primaries nor the general election did Trump offer much in the way of strategies or programs to deal with any of the issues he cited. He dominated campaign attention by belittling his opponents and predecessors and by aggressively asserting that he, emphasis on he, would solve these matters for the benefit of Americans.

Once in office, Trump’s bombast has not moderated. While he has issued over 100 executive orders, most do not lay out detailed proposals. Generally, they direct some office or agency to address a broad set of concerns or they overturn orders left in place by previous presidents. Ironically, Trump does not appear to view as partners the bureaucracies that are to implement these policies.  

Trump’s picks for senior staff positions in the administration have been undistinguished overall. Frequently, there does not appear to have been any previous interaction between Trump and the appointee. As a candidate he talked of “draining the swamp” in regard to the influence of special interests, but many of Trump’s appointees appear to have significant conflicts of interest. 
  
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Transportation chief Elaine Chao both have disregarded commitments to divest stock in companies with interests their departments are in a position to further. Scott Pruitt who has already left the Environmental Protection Agency received substantial campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industries when serving as Oklahoma’s attorney general. 

Pruitt has been replaced by a former lobbyist for the coal industry.

Trump’s lack of meaningful experience in foreign affairs has been obvious. At first, he appeared to be enamored with military brass, selecting retired generals for several major slots. They are all gone, and he is on his third national security advisor, his third head of Homeland Security and his third chief of staff in the White House.

Rex Tillerson was his choice for Secretary of State, but Trump and the former head of Exxon were never in harmony. Many senior positions in the State Department remain empty even today, including a number of key ambassadorial slots.

 An ambassador to Mexico was announced in March 2019 and an envoy to El Salvador in January 2019. 

Trump’s only major legislative accomplishment has been the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Estimates of its benefits have been mixed. Corporations have been the big winners, but the anticipated impact on job and wage growth has been muted.  

He has been successful in cementing a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, thanks in large measure to US Senator Mitch McConnell, the GOP majority leader. The US Senate under McConnell’s leadership has become a much more partisan body.

 The issues that Trump highlighted in the 2016 election campaign are still festering. Some are worse. Any change in his approach to his responsibilities seems remote.

There are lessons here. The US president must be aware of the concerns and needs of the American public in the broadest sense.  He should be the chief advocate for our citizenry.

But the president also needs to be sensitive to our constitutional structure and to the reality of what and who is required to implement policy. He cannot be successful as a one-man band.  The understanding and temperament that come with governmental and political experience is essential to achieving progress.     

As voters we need to improve our personal approach to evaluating presidential candidates and to insist the political parties exercise greater care in the nomination process. Granted in a democratic society you do not wish to impose burdensome restrictions on potential candidates, but realistically, in the modern world a flawed president quickly becomes an albatross that threatens the national interest.